Do I have to buy Mathematica to try your code?
Comment on Open thread by Curious George
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Kent Draper
Great comment ++++
↧
Comment on Open thread by Wagathon
…at least the UN-IPCC was half right — water is a problem only not enough of it.
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
I think this focus on the ocean is appropriate. But don’t forget the warmer ocean will put more water into the atmosphere. And when it comes to climate rock-paper-scissors, clouds cover the ocean.
↧
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Rob Ellison
‘Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.’ Albert Einstein
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ James McWilliams
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ IPCC
FOMBS has explained everything mathematically? One of the first things we learn in engineering is the sanity check. I take it we have gotten past not getting stellar like temperatures in a centrifuge then?
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Joe Born
This is an example of why we lawyers think science is too important to be left to scientists. Scientists too often think they’ve proved a conclusion when in fact they’ve assumed the conclusion to begin with. There are circles in which this is known as begging the question.
↧
Comment on Open thread by JeffN
The AAAS sides with conservatives and Republicans against anti-science liberals and Democrats on the topic of Genetically modified food.
http://www.aaas.org/news/statement-aaas-board-directors-labeling-genetically-modified-foods
The AAAS sides with conservatives and Republicans against anti-science liberals and Democrats on the topic of nuclear power.
http://www.aaas.org/news/energy-expert-calls-more-nuclear-power-us-energy-portfolio
So, naturally, we get a story suggesting that scientists assume conservatives and Republicans are anti-science. If you don’t want politicized science, stop politicizing science. Sarewitz is right.
↧
Comment on Open thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Curious George wonders “Do I have to buy Mathematica to try your code?“
Curious George, you have three options:
• Option I Using the supplied code as a guidance, assisted by the (free!) on-line Mathematica documentation, derive the results by hand.
• Option II Download Mathematica’s free 15-day trial. Downside: fifteen days is far too short a time to learn Mathematica.
• Option III Implement the same computation using free-as-in-freedom SAGE. Downside: SAGE ain’t easy to learn either!
No matter what, it’s best to begin with Option I (as FOMD did).
Because the sobering truth is that even though computers can be very helpful for locating and fixing errors, and for documenting the steps of a calculation, computers are *NOT* much help in finding overall strategies for computation.
Lesson-learned As Euclid wisely advised King Ptolemy: “There is no royal road to mathematics.” So work lots of problems!
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by aaron
Why would you think the earth is in radiative balance? Paleo data (sealevel rise) suggest the earth is rarely in radiative balance.
Anyway, it’s not just that the earth is closer to the sun, it’s that its lowest albeo regions are closest to the sun. The oceans in particular, which may not give up the heat immediately.
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Joe Born opines “We lawyers think science is too important to be left to scientists.”
Renowned legal scholars like Roberto Mangabeira Unger certainly lend weight to your opinion!
Good on `yah, Joe Born, for helping to inspire Climate Etc readers to inquire more deeply and learn more broadly!
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
Look at what more government money did for solar. It funneled money into the pockets of Obama’s funders and cronies. Big government money draws big government fraudster flies.
↧
Comment on Open thread by rls
Tony,
In the 1970s I worked for Ford Motor Co as a process engineer, developing process sheets that instructed each assembly plant how to assemble the automobile it produced. The sheets included line by line instructions, illustrations, screws, tools, and torques; I also had to develop some of the tools, fixtures, and test equipment. Can you believe it?
The sheets were used by the industrial engineers to determine labor hours and could be found in the plants on each foreman’s stand. And each summer I would go to the plants for what was called “launch” to show the foremen how to do build the cars.
Thank you for the opportunity to blow my mind!
Cheers
Richard
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by John Smith (it's my real name)
tonyb
thanks for the Met CET link
the anomalies make me curious in that they create a perception of much greater variation than if the graphic showed all the the data
if I understand correctly
if so, bugs me a bit
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Steven Mosher
Jesus Joe.
You lawyers dont even understand that science isnt about proof.
you dont prove anything in science.
A) you explain.
B) you predict.
There are some areas of science where you cannot predict, or cases where you can predict, but testing is practically not feasible. In these areas science is limited to explanation. explanation is “making sense” of observables with the most parsimonious set of rules.
Proof belongs to math and logic and geometry. Science is explanation and prediction. You dont prove you are right. you show that your explanation accounts for observables and that it makes predictions that are in principle testable, even though you may not be able to explicitly test them.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Don Monfort
Thanks for the advice, tim. I don’t know how I have gotten along without your counsel for so long. I will know the next time someone dodges a question with a snide comment, to just drop it. I don’t want to be non-productive. However, I will point out in my defense that in the interaction nickels and I achieved agreement and mutual respect. Contrast that with where you and I stand; you lecturing and me finding your lecturing gratuitous and silly.
Re. your PS: Why did you feel the need to tell me that I am not the only vet commenting here? Do you imagine that I thought I was the only one? Do you think I have said something that other vets may find offensive? What’s with you?
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
This is how unnecessary government regulations kill nuclear power in the US (not China).
From the article:
…
Several years ago Toshiba Corp. wanted to build a new, small-scale reactor in the Yukon River community of Galena. The 10-megawatt reactor would have been buried underground and fuel would have lasted for 30 years. It was projected to slash energy prices from 20 cents per kilowatt hour to several cents, said Dennis Witmer, an energy consultant with ACEP who contributed to the report and previously worked at a nuclear power plant.
But the project never began the mandatory, lengthy and extremely costly process of gaining approval by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This would include a site license, which takes tens of millions of dollars and several years, as well as a design permit. No design of this type has ever been approved, though one other has made it through the first step of the process, which took about six years.
“The project in Galena is effectively stalled,” Witmer said.
A small reactor also was proposed for Ester a couple of years ago. The design, created by Hyperion Power Generation, was about the size of a hot tub and also buried underground. It was estimated to cost approximately $30 million and produce 25 megawatts, roughly the same as the Aurora Energy power plant. But the project was abandoned when the developer learned it could take 15 years to complete.
…
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rud Istvan
Steven Mosher, not exactly. Yes, Gavin and GISS have extensive documentation. That includes the website GIStemp Tokyo example of how UHI is handled. BUT when you compare properly gridded US raw/final, the reality is the opposite. And when you compare successive documented official versions, the past IS progressively cooled and the present warmed. Yes, NCDC did publish the documentation on USHCN (and similar GHCN) v2 PHA in 2007. But undocumented changes have been made since that added an additional 0.2C US warming, again by colling the past and warming the present. All three examples illustrated from their own materials in essay When Data Isn’t in Blowing Smoke.
Hey, if this stuff was so well documented and coded, there would have been no need for BEST. Hard to have it both ways.
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
More from the article:
…
The Northern Alaska Environmental Center does not support nuclear energy mainly because of waste storage concerns and the impact of uranium mining.
…
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Rob Ellison
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. – Albert Einstein
FOMBS treats science and maths as a talisman. It doesn’t seem at all practical.
‘1. An object marked with magic signs and believed to confer on its bearer supernatural powers or protection.
2. Something that apparently has magic power.’
Pretty much the antithesis of science.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
